The Prince of Wales

[SwordsMaster]

However, what you imply and suggest is that style of system with the bottom working for master as it is inevitable, right? On the same lines, your stance on the slave trade is you transfer your same argument across is that "you will be serving one master or another, what is the big fuss?".

Don't be naive. Who do you pay your taxes to? What are they used for? Anything you voted they were used for? Who is responsible for the frankly education systems? High crime? How much money is on your paycheck vs what your company makes from you? I'm not even bringing up child labour in some of these "democracies".

Why is it that these "democratic" governments have failed to protect my savings in the financial crisis, ant not only that, but have sunk more billions of public funds into paying bonuses so the people responsible for them could manage to come out on top? Is that not an oligarchy? Is that not preferential treatment? Where are the interests of the man on the street represented?

When "democratic" governments dragged everyone in a war in Iraq and Afganistan despite massive popular protests were they serving your interests? Or those of Blackwater, Colt, Boeing and Co? Do you not see that what you are so fervently attacking is already almost here. It just has a different name.

And this same elite will be telling you what to do as you won't have the vote either. Then again, you don't care if you are pushed around, abused and told what to do from what you are saying. The problem with having a true democracy and fair system of government are people like you who seek to distroy the notion of what government should be and you concentrate everyone on the worse examples and rather play fetch with master.

If voting made any difference it'd be illegal. I care if I'm being pushed around and told what to do. Which is why I change countries as often as I do. I don't like the feeling of anyone watching my life, and I value my independence.

Also I have lived in enough democracies to know that they are not better in any way than any other system. It all depends on the person in power, not the structure of it. I'm yet to see a "true democracy and fair system of government" where people like me actually get to have an opinion that even gets put to a vote. When that happens I will consider changing my mind.

Yes it is.

Well, I, for one, think that your lack of manners is not something to be proud of.

[Beskar]

Don't be naive. Who do you pay your taxes to? What are they used for? Anything you voted they were used for? Who is responsible for the frankly education systems? High crime? How much money is on your paycheck vs what your company makes from you? I'm not even bringing up child labour in some of these "democracies".

What does that have to do with anything? Democracy is nothing to do with child labour, why is it even being mentioned? You also saying child labour is a bad thing, but on the same time, you are advocating a system which makes everything like that.

Why is it that these "democratic" governments have failed to protect my savings in the financial crisis, ant not only that, but have sunk more billions of public funds into paying bonuses so the people responsible for them could manage to come out on top? Is that not an oligarchy? Is that not preferential treatment? Where are the interests of the man on the street represented?

Because they aren't real democracies. Closest currently in the world is probably Switzerland. Because the systems in place aren't right, doesn't mean you can dismiss the correct way with the logic of "we tried (when we haven't) we failed (when it hasn't been done) lets give up (let oppression come upon us)". Infact you really really want to know the clincher? With the last election of 30% of the population even bothering to vote, it is basically your elite running the country anyway, so if anything, your elite-style is where all the problems are.

When "democratic" governments dragged everyone in a war in Iraq and Afganistan despite massive popular protests were they serving your interests? Or those of Blackwater, Colt, Boeing and Co? Do you not see that what you are so fervently attacking is already almost here. It just has a different name.

Because they aren't democracies. Isn't that simple? It is a representative of your elites with your elites voting for them and your elites lobbying and other methods making things go their way. So instead of trying to fix the problem, you are advocating just giving it to your elites.

If voting made any difference it'd be illegal. I care if I'm being pushed around and told what to do. Which is why I change countries as often as I do. I don't like the feeling of anyone watching my life, and I value my independence.

??? What?

Also I have lived in enough democracies to know that they are not better in any way than any other system. It all depends on the person in power, not the structure of it. I'm yet to see a "true democracy and fair system of government" where people like me actually get to have an opinion that even gets put to a vote. When that happens I will consider changing my mind.

From what are you talking about, you don't know what a real democracy is as there currently aren't any, with as I said, with the closest probably with Switzerland. You need to brush up on your political theory.

Well, I, for one, think that your lack of manners is not something to be proud of.

I think your talk of advocating oppression stupid and if you were a politician and said about letting your masters take us, you will get the infamous shoe/egg thrown at you.

[SwordsMaster]

There we go again, I'm not advocating oppression in the same way I'm not advocating slavery, or idiocy, or any of those things.

What does that have to do with anything? Democracy is nothing to do with child labour, why is it even being mentioned? You also saying child labour is a bad thing, but on the same time, you are advocating a system which makes everything like that.

Please review what I said. You were the one suggesting I advocated slavery and submission when I never did either.

What I'm trying to put across is that people should be ruled by those fit to rule, which in turn should be decided by those who are capable of making that decision.

Infact you really really want to know the clincher? With the last election of 30% of the population even bothering to vote, it is basically your elite running the country anyway, so if anything, your elite-style is where all the problems are.

That's exactly it, except those showing up to vote are not those better suited to vote, but rather those who could make time for it - i.e. the unemployed, maybe the single, or the very commited.

Sure, the lobbying is being done by the elites, but their target is those who will vote. It is also in their interest not to allow discerning adults to vote. Which is why elections son't usually happen on saturday afternoons, when adults get time off work.

What would be your definition of a real democracy? I only have my opinion of what I have experienced. You seem to have an opinion pouring from the magical fountain of abstract democratic ideals.

PS: Sorry BG, got carried away.

[HoreTore]

That's exactly it, except those showing up to vote are not those better suited to vote, but rather those who could make time for it - i.e. the unemployed, maybe the single, or the very commited

What? You've been living far too long in dictatorships to even remember how a democracy works, mate.

You have a couple of months to make that vote. It takes 20 minutes to do. Even the busiest man in the world has 20 minutes free in a period of a couple of months.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Is this what they teach you in the finest schools in France?

Before we decided we'd had enough of them, we went through a bunch of dukes, kings and emperors. Three fine Charleses come to mind: Charlemagne, Charles the Bold and Charles V.

Does the permissive Dutch 'education' system not even teach its pupils the difference between duke/king/emperor of the Netherlands, and duke/king/emperor ruling over a territory part of which would later become the Netherlands?

If Charlemagne or Charles V were king of the Netherlands, then Sharp-Clawed-Eagle-Who-Hunts-Puny-Raccoons III was president of the United Sates. And August the first president of Italy.

They were not monarchs of the Netherlands because there was no Netherlands. Only a collection of lowland German and French provinces. The Netherlands came about when the États généraux of several lowland provinces assumed sovereignity themselves. The birth of republicanism in, and the birth of the country of, the Netherlands, is a single event.

As with so many of what today are thought of as ancient, timeless monarchies, the Dutch monarchy only came about in the nineteenth century. Monarchy is an alien institution to the Netherlands. Bold Republicanism is what made the Netherlands the envy of Europe. What left Europe speechless, breathless, awestruck.

In a previous thread, I accused the Dutch of lacking a sense of history. Well here you have it. How a country that was once the proudest and mightiest Republic in Europe can let itself be turned into a petty Legoland monarchy, and take pride in that too, is beyond me.

Napoleon's brother Louis turned out to be an excellent choice, by the way. His smart and humane rule

Throughout Western Europe Napoleon installed enlightened, liberal governments. This is the beauty of it all. Despite Napoleon's ultimate military defeat, he had made the Revolution succeed in Europe. Peoples everywhere had had a taste of liberty and of modern governance, instead of old regime tyranny and particularism.

Enlightened legal systems, neutral bureaucracies, national harmonization and standardization - these were installed by Napoleon. And they were not fully removed after the restauration because of their clear effeciency and widespread popularity.
However, they are at odds with absolutism. They are the very foundation of the liberal democratic state. The Restauration failed to comprehend this. Liberty in the hearts of the people, and rationality in the body of the state, this is the Revolution's legacy.

This left the area that had been under Napoléon's control with only two options after the Restauration: go liberal after all, or learn how to use this modern state apparatus for totalitarian means and fight democracy. Ancient regimes themselves had been rendered impossible in any long run.

This is why I'd have followed Napoléon to the ends of the earth. Who cares about dying in the Russian winter when the seeds that have been sown will survive for a spring of democracy? For that I'd have followed him, and for his sheer testicular fortitude. There is only so much glory a man can be impervious to.



The two replies show the ambiguity one feels about Napoléon. To preserve the republics, he destroyed them. By destroying liberty, he enabled it.

[Adrian II]

[..] a territory part of which would later become the Netherlands?

The name 'the Netherlands' was older than the Republic, dear Louis. They were called the 'Burgundian Netherlands' under Charles the Bold, the 'Habsburg Netherlands' under Charles V, and the 'Spanish Netherlands' under Philip II. So there.

And from 1815 to 1830 the Kingdom encompassed a territory much larger than that of the Republic, since it included Belgium (previously known as the 'Spanish Netherlands').

If I were you, I would reclaim some of those tuition fees...

[Rhyfelwyr]

The name 'the Netherlands' was older than the Republic, dear Louis. They were called the 'Burgundian Netherlands' under Charles the Bold, the 'Habsburg Netherlands' under Charles V, and the 'Spanish Netherlands' under Philip II. So there.

And from 1815 to 1830 the Kingdom encompassed a territory much larger than that of the Republic, since it included Belgium (previously known as the 'Spanish Netherlands').

If I were you, I would reclaim some of those tuition fees...

Doesn't work for the bit you said about Charlemagne though... the closest thing to any sort of distint state in the area before the Frankish conquest was a collection of petty Frisian kingdoms... then from 843AD the Netherlands were just the fringe of the realm of Middle Francia, no more distinct in modern national terms than any of the rest of the kingdom which was made up of east France, western Germany, and northern Italy...

[Adrian II]

Doesn't work for the bit you said about Charlemagne though... the closest thing to any sort of distint state in the area before the Frankish conquest was a collection of petty Frisian kingdoms... then from 843AD the Netherlands were just the fringe of the realm of Middle Francia, no more distinct in modern national terms than any of the rest of the kingdom which was made up of east France, western Germany, and northern Italy...

Gadzooks... Ok, skip the first Charles, that means I have two left.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The name 'the Netherlands' was older than the Republic, dear Louis. They were called the 'Burgundian Netherlands' under Charles the Bold, the 'Habsburg Netherlands' under Charles V, and the 'Spanish Netherlands' under Philip II. So there.

And from 1815 to 1830 the Kingdom encompassed a territory much larger than that of the Republic, since it included Belgium (previously known as the 'Spanish Netherlands').

If I were you, I would reclaim some of those tuition fees...

Oh. Dear. :feignedshock:

'The Netherlands' was a geographic name. 'Les Pays-Bas', that is, 'The Low lands'. It was also a political name, a collective name for seventeen Germanic/French provinces.

The [/i]country[/i] of the Netherlands, in any name, shape or form, only came about when several provinces sat themselves together and assumed sovereignity.


Likewise, the name 'the America's' is older than the United States of America. It was called 'Spanish America', or 'French America'. Yet, the country 'The United States of America' dates back not to Columbus, not to the first British settlementm but to, exactly, July 4th, 1776.
Similarly too, there has always been a 'Germany'. Yet, the country of East Germany does not date back to 1870 or before. It dates back to 1949.

As with East Germany in 1900, there was no notion of a country of the Northern Netherlands in 1500. The birth of the Netherlands was simultaneous to the birth of Republicanism.

[Adrian II]

The [/i]country[/i] of the Netherlands, in any name, shape or form, only came about when several provinces sat themselves together and assumed sovereignity.

Nope.

The Lowlands, Netherlands or Seventeen Provinces were declared one and indivisible under the Pragmatic Sanction of 1549.

Charles, par la divine clémence Empereur de Romains toujours auguste, Roy de Germanie, de Castille, de Léon, de Grenade, d'Aragon etc. Sçavoir faisons à tous présents et advenir, que comme nous ayons tousjours soigneusement et curieusement veillé à tout ce que a concerné le bien, repos et tranquillité de nos Pays de pardeçà, et pourveu non seulement à ce que nous sembloit nécessaire pour le présent, mais aussi aux choses à l'advenir, afin que nosdits Pays fussent tant mieux régis, gouvernez et conservez en leur entier, et estant nostre intention de tousjours faire le mesme envers iceux avec touts convenables moyens qui se pourront offrir, nous avons considéré qu'il importoit grandement à nosdits Pays pour l'entière seureté et establissement d'iceux, que pour l'advenir ils demeurassent tousjours soubs un mesme Prince, pour les tenir en une masse, bien connoissant que, venans à tomber en diverses mains par droict de succession héréditaire, ce seroit l'évidante éversion et ruine d'iceux.

They even had their own flag:





Only 99 years later did part of the Netherlands become a republic, known as the Republic of the Seven United Provinces.

Of course if want to maintain that our country became a country only when it became a country in your book, I will gracefully bow to your Cartesian logic.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The Lowlands, Netherlands or Seventeen Provinces were declared one and indivisible under the Pragmatic Sanction of 1549.

Of course if want to maintain that our country became a country only when it became a country in your book, I will gracefully bow to your Cartesian logic.

Bow? We shall have to disagree to disagree then, for I shall argue it a bit longer.

The Pragmatic Sanction was a personal union under Charles V. In 1581, the Northern Netherlands declared themselves absolved from this union in the Acte de la Haye. (Act of The Hague). This was a declaration of indepence. What's more, the creation of something new. The continuity of the Spanish Netherlands was with the Southern Netherlands.


By the way - this explains the difference in identity between the Netherlands and Belgium. The Netherlands have a strong national identity, being an old country, of their own making.
Belgium by contrast was what was left of the Burgundian lands. A rump state. Lacking a clear national identity.
(And when Belgium at last became a clear entity of it's own, it was a Walloon state. To this day, the goal of Wallonia is Belgium, that of Flanders is Flanders)


Ah well. I've pretty much exhausted the subject too.

~~-~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~-~~

The Dutch Republic was also an oppressive theocracy.

Psst, don't tell Louis..

Too late!

The Dutch Catholics were emancipated by the Revolutionaries. For such, amongst others, was the 'tyranny' the French armies brought: freedom of religion.

~~-~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~-~~

'Louis, I love you in a manly, backroomish sort of way. Furthermore, I promise to never, ever agree with you on anything'.
I love you too and so I promise to never admit you are right about anything. Dearest, I knew that deep down you like it ruff, just as much as I do, but were simply scared to admit it.

~~-~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~-~~

I think most surviving Constitutional Monarchies are Protestant, while there are lots of predominantly Catholic Republics.

I can only think of Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg and Liechtenstein.

Catholics breed like rabbits though. Soon we'll take over Canada, the UK and the Netherlands.

[HoreTore]

Charles, par la divine clémence Empereur de Romains toujours auguste, Roy de Germanie, de Castille, de Léon, de Grenade, d'Aragon etc. Sçavoir faisons à tous présents et advenir, que comme nous ayons tousjours soigneusement et curieusement veillé à tout ce que a concerné le bien, repos et tranquillité de nos Pays de pardeçà, et pourveu non seulement à ce que nous sembloit nécessaire pour le présent, mais aussi aux choses à l'advenir, afin que nosdits Pays fussent tant mieux régis, gouvernez et conservez en leur entier, et estant nostre intention de tousjours faire le mesme envers iceux avec touts convenables moyens qui se pourront offrir, nous avons considéré qu'il importoit grandement à nosdits Pays pour l'entière seureté et establissement d'iceux, que pour l'advenir ils demeurassent tousjours soubs un mesme Prince, pour les tenir en une masse, bien connoissant que, venans à tomber en diverses mains par droict de succession héréditaire, ce seroit l'évidante éversion et ruine d'iceux.

I have to admit something.

My willie always wakes up when I hear french, even when I read it, as I can't help myself from fantasizing that there's a seductive hottie whispering the words...

I really should move there. Soon. And learn the language.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh. Dear. :feignedshock:

'The Netherlands' was a geographic name. 'Les Pays-Bas', that is, 'The Low lands'. It was also a political name, a collective name for seventeen Germanic/French provinces.

The [/i]country[/i] of the Netherlands, in any name, shape or form, only came about when several provinces sat themselves together and assumed sovereignity.


Likewise, the name 'the America's' is older than the United States of America. It was called 'Spanish America', or 'French America'. Yet, the country 'The United States of America' dates back not to Columbus, not to the first British settlementm but to, exactly, July 4th, 1776.
Similarly too, there has always been a 'Germany'. Yet, the country of East Germany does not date back to 1870 or before. It dates back to 1949.

As with East Germany in 1900, there was no notion of a country of the Northern Netherlands in 1500. The birth of the Netherlands was simultaneous to the birth of Republicanism.

I feel the need to point out that the Dutch Republic was composed of a number feudal lordships, not constitutional Republics. The Dutch Republic was also an oppressive theocracy.

I can see why the Dutch might think a Constitutional Monarchy a good idea.

Oh, I've just realised something. I think most surviving Constitutional Monarchies are Protestant, while there are lots of predominantly Catholic Republics.

[Romanus]

Throughout Western Europe Napoleon installed enlightened, liberal governments. This is the beauty of it all. Despite Napoleon's ultimate military defeat, he had made the Revolution succeed in Europe. Peoples everywhere had had a taste of liberty and of modern governance, instead of old regime tyranny and particularism.

He said that his brother was a good fellow. Napoleon himself was a tyrant and dictator who ruined our country, destroyed what was left of our industry and trade and conscripted our manhood. The french had been robbing us blind since 1795 when they where allowed to march in with the help of the so-called exiled patriots. Freedom and liberty my arse.

[Adrian II]

The french had been robbing us blind since 1795 when they where allowed to march in with the help of the so-called exiled patriots. Freedom and liberty my arse bummy-bum.

That, too. But they brought some very necessary changes, for instance administrative centralisation, the dissolution of the guild system, the emancipation of the Jews. If only their language hadn't been this unfathomable brabble...

[Romanus]

That, too. But they brought some very necessary changes, for instance administrative centralisation, the dissolution of the guild system, the emancipation of the Jews. If only their language hadn't been this unfathomable brabble...

Indeed, the big problem of the republic was that it was basically a state based on medieval insitutions. There had been some attempts to reform the state in the 18th century but the patricians of the individual states and cities blocked.

[Louis VI the Fat]

He said that his brother was a good fellow. Napoleon himself was a tyrant and dictator who ruined our country, destroyed what was left of our industry and trade and conscripted our manhood. The french had been robbing us blind since 1795 when they where allowed to march in with the help of the so-called exiled patriots. Freedom and liberty my arse.

I see that underneath your name it says: 'Fearful Jesuit'.

The Dutch Catholics were emancipated by the Revolutionaries. For such, amongst others, was the 'tyranny' the French armies brought: freedom of religion.

The worth of the nationalist-protestant-monarchist variant of Dutch history, I shall decide with my bummy-bum, in a moment when I visit the toilette.

I will cease to derail the discussion onto the nature of power and allow it to return to Charles

We are going of on all sorts of tangents in this thread. Your thoughts about the nature of power are not more off-topic than Cromwell, Napoleon or republicanism.

By all means debate your preference for monarchs if you feel like it. Where's the fun if we don't disagree with one another?

[Adrian II]

Where's the fun if we don't disagree with one another?

Louis, I love you in a manly, backroomish sort of way. There is no time like the wee small hours to confess to such sentiments and I will probably regret this tomorrow, but you are the best thing to happen to this forum since TosaInu set it up. Furthermore, I promise to never, ever agree with you on anything. Now, back to your ramblings about statecraft.

I feel the need to point out that the Dutch Republic was composed of a number feudal lordships, not constitutional Republics.

Eh? The Dutch Republic was a republic of lords, is that what you're suggesting?

The Dutch Republic was also an oppressive theocracy.

Psst, don't tell Louis..

[Louis VI the Fat]

Regardless though, I'd like to know of those 30% who vote how many have finished secondary education and their occupations.

In all Western countries, the rule is: the more education, the more likely a person is to vote.

We are not ruled by the unemployed and uneducated. Nor do governments conspire with the masses against the elite.

*Returns to the other internets where elitist governments are accused of conspiring against the masses...*

[SwordsMaster]

In all Western countries, the rule is: the more education, the more likely a person is to vote.

We are not ruled by the unemployed and uneducated. Nor do governments conspire with the masses against the elite.

*Returns to the other internets where elitist governments are accused of conspiring against the masses...*

Hahaha, no you're right. My point was more along the lines of the governments ignore the masses largely, and those who wouldn't be ignored don't really get to participate.

The Napoleonic experiment failed in Spain however, and except for the independence of the american colonies brought very little in terms of political reform for a good 40 years. King Ferinand's restoration even brought back the Inquisition. Not that the successive government of his daughter was better, allowing the state to transition from revolution to revolution in a two party system in which they succeeded each other with monotonous predictability while she bedded most of the Royal Guards. Enfin, I suppose we all get the governments we allow to stay in power and deserve.

Anyway, I adhere to my point that in my view voting should be limited, or at least weighted, and that heads of governments should be elected from among the most capable to govern for much longer than 4 years and even for life.

Consider this though: what would happen if Charles, or Philippe of Spain started a political party, won an election due to the imbecility dominating the current benches, and then pushed a law through making his position permanent and hereditary, which would get approved by the Head of State, mom or dad, and therefore potentially become law. Then, once the venerable ancestor is dead, they would become both heads of State and government, and therefore chiefs of both the legislative and executive branches, wielding quite a bit of power. And so democratically defeat democracy in an ironic turn of events. No need to accuse me of monarchism again, it's just a mental exercise, and spanish that I am, I like our prince better than our PM.

In any case I will cease to derail the discussion onto the nature of power and allow it to return to Charles, and I apologise to Louis for having hijacked his thread.